Confucius, Mencius, and Xunzi develop their theories following one
continuous thread, although Xunzi, in our view, significantly enriches
and diversifies Confucianism, thus reflecting the complexities and
vicissitudes of the times.
Nevertheless, Confucian as he is, Xunzi exhibits some major differ-
ences from Confucius and Mencius. Confucius and Mencius stress
individuals’ innate goodness arguing that individuals’ self-conscious
endeavors are more important than external forces. In contrast, based
on the original evilness of human nature, Xunzi held that people may
not willingly and consciously remold themselves. According to follow-
ers of Mencius, good governance involves merely extending human
conscience and its inherent virtues in order to transform the socialchaos
and the collapse of conduct propriety. The times that Xunzi lived in,
however, denied him the possibility of simply striving for ‘‘benevolent
administration’’ as advocated by Mencius. Xunzi therefore draws
upon the perspectives of the Legalists and further explicates social and
administrative rules and regulations to supplement the moral and ritual
governance previously advocated by orthodox Confucians, thus making
his theory more relevant and applicable to the reality of his time.
Xunzi contended that people follow propriety rules not because
of the self-discovery of some innate conscience but because of the
cultural, legal, and administrative systems created by leaders. Hegel,
the distinguished German philosopher, was quoted (Marx and Engels,
1972 : 233) as saying that ‘‘people believe that they express a great idea
when they say human nature is good; but they forget that they bring
out an even greater idea when they say human nature is evil.’’ The
recognition of the evil side of human nature broadens and legitimizes
social interventions that include prohibitive and coercive governance
measures. For example, while strengthening education and encultura-
tion to foster virtuous outlooks, values, and behaviors, kings and lords
can also strengthen the legal system to keep crimes within limits.
Xunzi therefore did not merely express ‘‘an even greater idea,’’ but
brought forward a series of feasible frameworks for governance and
leadership. For this,
the thoughts of Xunzi were more influential than those of Mencius in an era
of prevalent disorder and universal utilitarianism. This is why Xunzi held
a significant position in the emergence of an ideology during the period of
the Qin and Han dynasties. Although Mencius transformed the school of
Confucianism, and its descendants increasingly rise in their status in the
Bridging Confucianism and Legalism 73